TERRORIST ATTACK ON AIRPORT IN HAWAII

John R Cambron * writes:

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to
make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far
more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?


If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and
Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease
of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a
rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Without the locked dooors, there's less of a security hazard.

http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross_new/
http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross/
http://www.urinal.net/manila/
http://www.urinal.net/stadhouders_kade/
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

John R Cambron * writes:

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to
make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far
more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?


If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and
Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease
of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a
rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Without the locked dooors, there's less of a security hazard.

http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross_new/
http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross/
http://www.urinal.net/manila/
http://www.urinal.net/stadhouders_kade/
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

John R Cambron * writes:

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to
make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far
more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?


If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and
Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease
of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a
rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Without the locked dooors, there's less of a security hazard.

http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross_new/
http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross/
http://www.urinal.net/manila/
http://www.urinal.net/stadhouders_kade/
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

John R Cambron * writes:

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to
make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far
more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?


If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and
Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease
of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a
rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Without the locked dooors, there's less of a security hazard.

http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross_new/
http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross/
http://www.urinal.net/manila/
http://www.urinal.net/stadhouders_kade/
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

John R Cambron * writes:

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to
make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far
more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?


If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and
Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease
of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a
rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Without the locked dooors, there's less of a security hazard.

http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross_new/
http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross/
http://www.urinal.net/manila/
http://www.urinal.net/stadhouders_kade/
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

John R Cambron * writes:

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to
make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far
more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?


If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and
Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease
of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a
rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Without the locked dooors, there's less of a security hazard.

http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross_new/
http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross/
http://www.urinal.net/manila/
http://www.urinal.net/stadhouders_kade/
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

Yeoh Yiu wrote:

John R Cambron * writes:

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to
make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far
more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?


If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and
Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease
of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a
rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give discretion
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Without the locked dooors, there's less of a security hazard.

http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross_new/
http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross/
http://www.urinal.net/manila/
http://www.urinal.net/stadhouders_kade/

Well considering that WMATA metrorail station restrooms are in
areas of the stations where they share access to station support
facilities. Making the access point accessible through an unlocked
door is not a very good way of maintaining security to the other
areas.

--
================================================== ====================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or
Hebron MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/
================================================== ====================
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

Yeoh Yiu wrote:

John R Cambron * writes:

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to
make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far
more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?


If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and
Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease
of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a
rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give discretion
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Without the locked dooors, there's less of a security hazard.

http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross_new/
http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross/
http://www.urinal.net/manila/
http://www.urinal.net/stadhouders_kade/

Well considering that WMATA metrorail station restrooms are in
areas of the stations where they share access to station support
facilities. Making the access point accessible through an unlocked
door is not a very good way of maintaining security to the other
areas.

--
================================================== ====================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or
Hebron MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/
================================================== ====================
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

Yeoh Yiu wrote:

John R Cambron * writes:

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to
make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far
more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?


If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and
Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease
of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a
rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give discretion
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Without the locked dooors, there's less of a security hazard.

http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross_new/
http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross/
http://www.urinal.net/manila/
http://www.urinal.net/stadhouders_kade/

Well considering that WMATA metrorail station restrooms are in
areas of the stations where they share access to station support
facilities. Making the access point accessible through an unlocked
door is not a very good way of maintaining security to the other
areas.

--
================================================== ====================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or
Hebron MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/
================================================== ====================
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

Yeoh Yiu wrote:

John R Cambron * writes:

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to
make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far
more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?


If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and
Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease
of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a
rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give discretion
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Without the locked dooors, there's less of a security hazard.

http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross_new/
http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross/
http://www.urinal.net/manila/
http://www.urinal.net/stadhouders_kade/

Well considering that WMATA metrorail station restrooms are in
areas of the stations where they share access to station support
facilities. Making the access point accessible through an unlocked
door is not a very good way of maintaining security to the other
areas.

--
================================================== ====================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or
Hebron MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/
================================================== ====================
--multiplaza.nl.nu--